Defining frivolous

Given that our nation has never before witnessed the peaceful transition of power threatened in the 223 years that presidential administrations have changed hands, one marvels at the audacity of the "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington, D.C., last weekend. As a pure spectacle, the event was remarkable in its riotous mix of U.S. and blue Trump flags waving in the breeze as an estimated 10,000 protesters marched to the U.S. Supreme Court to press the illegitimacy of a presidential election in which their man came up short in both the popular vote and the electoral college.

But that's about it. Instead of soaring oratory, we witnessed mob-like threats of violence and resistance to the death on behalf of President Trump. Instead of meticulous evidence of a stolen presidential election that so many claim, we heard conspiracy theories no more substantial than the vapid Trump-commissioned lawsuits challenging election results in battleground states, one after another after another dismissed by federal judges.

The personal belief some of us have about demonstrating empathy for others might justify such expressions now for our obviously crestfallen Trump-supporting friends and neighbors. But if we empathize for those Trump supporters who believe his defeat means the end of American greatness, it's only fair to remind them that many Democrats, independents and principled conservatives felt exactly the same when this profane, boastful business tycoon and reality TV star won election to the presidency in 2016. It might help if Trump supporters recalled that Trump's presidential opponent showed grace in making a concession speech within hours of election night returns. It might help if Trump supporters recalled that the president of the United States almost immediately invited Trump to the White House to begin in earnest the process of a peaceful transition of power that is the hallmark of American democracy.

Not enough to quiet the cries of a stolen election? How about this Nov. 12 statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which last I checked ultimately reports to President Trump: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result. When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised."

My survey of the legal challenges that Trump's dwindling army of attorneys filed indicated none were likely to change vote tallies significantly if at all. Take, for instance, those suits complaining about Republican poll watchers not having enough access to the ongoing balloting process. While a federal court might agree or disagree, how does this indict the voter or negate the ballot cast? Are we the people to be penalized because of some regulation about poll watchers and its enforcement? A judge might order future elections to change distances for poll watchers, but that same judge is unlikely to take it out on the average voter or the almighty democratic process. Even certain judges not above doing their party a favor here and there before the election are unlikely to invalidate broad swaths of voters after the election.

Beyond that, Trump legal eagles astonishingly fail to grasp that states are given considerable leeway in how each runs elections. And, yes, this means wild, sometimes baffling inconsistencies in election protocols from state to state, a source of frustration for many of us in the peanut gallery come Election Night. But welcome to American History 101: This is the direct result of states' rights vigorously pressed back during our nation's founding. In fact, when Democrats pressed an election reform bill in 2019 that would have standardized certain election protocols across the nation, Republican Congressman Bill Flores, elected from Central Texas during the tea party tidal wave of 2010, voted against it because it "allows Washington bureaucrats to overturn state election laws." Other Republicans voiced similar reservations in 2019.

Of federal court transcripts made available thus far, the most outrageous I've seen showed a Trump attorney actually trying to redefine the long-established legal meaning of "hearsay" in arguments with an astonished federal judge. You just know how that debate is going to end.

Anyone constitutionally grounded in laws and tradition can only settle on one adjective concerning these lawsuits as well as this entire "Stop the Steal" movement behind them: frivolous.